Absolute Immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were (malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent[4] or gave "knowingly false testimony" as) integral parts of the judicial process"[5]for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[6] as currently enforced exemplifies the slovenliness and sloth of our Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Our Supreme Court is slovenly in that they are now SLOPPY with their grant of blanket absolute immunity "for all persons."Our Supreme Court is slothfully in that they are lazily granting blanket absolute immunity for the deprivation of rights rather than do there job adjudicate and set individual precedent for cases. The Supreme Court is in essence saying that their judicial process is ALWAYS right and We the People have no rights worth enforcing.The Supreme Court abdicated their responsibility; the Supreme Court cares NOT who's rights are deprived.Immunity was NEVER historically intended to be blanket or absolute.

That Randall and Bradley reach back 264 years to Lord Coke with Floyd and Barker in 1607 (1871-1607=264) in the Star Chamber[8] for a skewed interpretation from a corrupt court for a common law to over come We the People's intent to have the Constitution as the Supreme Law of Land[9] in what I asserts as a criminal unconstitutional conspiracy to void Supreme Court Precedent for superseding common law[10] and current congressional intent to stipulate criminal and civil liability[11]

"The Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."[13]

And Records are of so high a nature, that for their sublimity they import verity in themselves; and none shall be received to aver any thing against the Record itself; and in this point the Law is founded upon great reason; for if the Judiciall matters of Record should be drawn in question, by partial and sinister supposals and averments of Offenders, or any on their behalf, there never will be an end of Causes: But Controversies will be infinite; Et infinitum in jure reprobatur[14]…

And those who are the most sincere, would not be free from continual Calumniations, for which reason the Orator said well, invigilandum est semper, multae insidiae sunt bonis.[15]

In that time in that world that was how things were done.They would not, could they even fathom the concept of debate on any subject, and they need explain NOTHING.They literally could not allow questioning or the whole house of cards, the divine right of kings, would fall.Immunity was not really and issue because the King nor any of his men could do anything wrong.Again Lord Coke with Floyd and Barker in 1607 in the Star Chamber[16]:

"Judges of the Realm have the administration of Justice under the King, to all his Subjects, they ought not to be drawn into question for any supposed corruption, which extends to the annihilating of a Record, or of any judiciall proceedings before them, or tending to the Slander of the Justice of the King, which will trench to the scandal of the King himself."

But Lord Coke himself was about to change things, in 1610 three years later, The Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22 Coke declared the King to be subject to the law, and the laws of Parliament to be void if in violation of "common right and reason".The American Revolution in 1776 took things quite a bit further!

ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!

ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!

The ministerial[17] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[18] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[19] "before out of Court"[20] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[21]

"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."I say it NOW, 2011!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.[22]Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[23].

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people.We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"[27]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[28] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[29] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."

Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!!I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 8 years.I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 4 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations.I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115."

[1] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child (or a thief) with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq -Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.

[7] The Congressional Statute intent to create Judicial liability was in the Congressional Record of debate on the issues in 1866 and 1871 several times repeated and those intentions have been several times made into precedent in the Supreme Court, i.e., "Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity."Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871.Justice William O. Douglas said it in Monroe v. Pape,365 U. S. 167(1961) and Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 559 (1967).Justice Marshall's in dissent Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), Page 460 U. S. 362 is perhaps the BEST!!!!!!!!!!

[8]The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was a CORRUPT English court that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until abolished 1641.Where the higher nobility could attack the lower level nobility without regard to the common law by use of the ex officio oath.The ex officio oath was an oath that required personal incrimination.

[9]The Constitution for the United States of America Article. VI. Second paragraph: "This Constitution, and the Laws[9] of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties[9] made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"

[10]"(I)it is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded."

"It is a general and indisputable rule that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.""It is a settled and invariable principle in the law… that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."Chief Justice John Marshal in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 163 (1803) establishing Supreme Court precedent and quoting English common law per the Commentaries on the Laws of England, the 18th-century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone

[12]The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was a CORRUPT English court where the higher nobility could attack the lower level nobility of the age could attack each other without regard to the common law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until abolished 1641.

[13] Floyd and Barker (1607). (1607) Easter Term, 5 James I In the Court of Star Chamber. First Published in the Reports, volume 12, page 23.

[15] Ed.: one must always be on one's guard, for in good things there are many snares.

[16]The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was a CORRUPT English court where the higher nobility could attack the lower level nobility of the age could attack each other without regard to the common law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until abolished 1641.

[17] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law.For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.

[19]Lord CokeFloyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."

[25] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution

[26] Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

[29] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples."Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.

I was quite amazed by your noticeable ignorance and indignation in the recent oral arguments, Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145.[2]I say look at the evil you have created!You seemed upset with your psychological victim's smugness and lack of empathy, Donna R. Andrieu, assistant district attorney in New Orleans.She was just performing as instructed by the evil intellectually slovenly slothful insanity and dearth of sensitivity of your OWN prior precedents:

"This immunity applies even when the judge (or all persons integral in the judicial process) is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly."[3]

"To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty."[4]

"There is, of course, the possibility that, despite the truthfinding safeguards of the judicial process, some defendants might indeed be unjustly convicted on the basis of knowingly false testimony by (any or all persons integral in the judicial process)police officers."[5]YA THINK?

In short the Supreme Court precedent requires absolute INSENSITIVITY and SMUGNESS across the board i.e., "absolute immunity… for all persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were (malicious, corrupt, dishonest, incompetent[6]or gave "knowingly false testimony" as) integral parts of the judicial process"[7]for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[8]

"This provision of the law (absolute immunity) is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge,[9] but for the benefit of ("We the People" being robbed and disenfranchised) the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to (act without regard to "We the People" rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America) exercise their functions with independence, and without fear of consequences"[10](non-italic, parenthetical text and emphasis added for CLARITY).

Thomas Jefferson said it better than I could hope to "We have long enough suffered under the base prostitution of law to party passions in one judge, and the imbecility of another. In the hands of one the law is nothing more than an ambiguous text, to be explained by his sophistry into any meaning which may subserve his personal malice."[11]

Your blanket precedent clearly asserts she nor anyone acting in your name under color of law can be held accountable for a wrong to wit, she nor anyone integral in the judicial process can do anything WRONG?

I agree Donna R. Andrieu, assistant district attorney in New Orleans seemed quite callous and without feeling.BUT, she was just acting as you and your Black Robed Royalist Brethren have asserted via prior precedent… as if SHE CAN DO NO WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

How are your psychological victims Judges, Prosecutors, Police officers and all persons integral parts of the judicial process suppose to psychologically defend themselves for their malice, corruption, dishonesty, incompetence[12]or "knowingly false testimony" without the emotional self-defense of SMUGNESS?Injustice is ANTI-social by definition.

I had a chance recently to re-read Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) and I have to believe Justice Holmes statement that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics" was pertinent here though not for the same reason.Mr. Herbert Spencer[13] was origin of the phrase "survival of the fittest," Our constitution was written and our country is currently inhabited by civilized people.I do not think I would be overstepping to say this is not a dog eat dog country, We the People are by nature civilized under the rule of law as defined by our intent to establish Justice.

The current Supreme Court's unmitigated support for the "survival of the fittest" in the application of justice is antithetical to Justice.James Madison said it best:

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful."[14]

I am a victim from the other side; I have had my son, my home, my career, my virtual life taken via the DENIAL of JUSTICE.I cry myself to sleep at night in hopes for a better day tomorrow.I have tried to assuage my loss because the Supreme Court Precedent says it is unavoidable!!!I just can't swallow the LIE!!!!I try to tell myself I need to just get over it for the Supreme Court is clearly divine[15] and can not afford to allow themselves or their henchmen to be bothered by asserted vexatious actions[16] or "continual Calumniations"[17] that rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America[18] allegedly necessitate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then I say STOP!!!

Let's rethink this

INSANITY!!!

We the People's Rights, privileges or immunities as secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America are not vexatious actions[19] or "continual Calumniations;"[20] they are what We the People call the Justice Department's JOB!!!!!!!!!!

Suck it up, take responsibly for yours and past Supreme Court FIVE'S[21] incompetent, corrupt, malicious, dishonest and intellectually slovenly sloth.[22]See to JUSTICE in 4:11-cv-0931-cas, USCA8 No. 11-2425[23] and all OTHER cases where IMMUNITY has been allowed to be asserted to the determent of innocent victims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

[11] The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 SCHOOLS AND "LITTLE REPUBLICS" To John Tyler Monticello, May 26, 1810

[12] Incompetence is the most insidious and unavoidable of human evils; it is denied and covered up by the grant of malice, corruption and dishonesty!!!!

[13] Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903) was an English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the Victorian era.

Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution before Darwin did."

Spencer is best known for coining the concept "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

[14] FEDERALIST No. 51, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments For the Independent Journal.Wednesday, February 6, 1788. by James Madison

[15] This in spite of 100 years of Jim Crow Lynching that can be directly linked to the segregationist's ruling in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) and the conceited ignorance of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) that empowered the animalistic SURVIVAL of the FITTEST, "Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics," over the majority of We the People as expressed by our STATUTE LAW

[22] You say you do not want to open up We the People to the liability for We the People's RIGHTS.THAT ain't your ISSUE.The regulation of expenditures is NOT your job!!!!That is done via LAW, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law"!!!!!No matter what you think you do not make LAW.

This expenditure is and has, since constitutional ratification, been lawfully and constitutionally authorized by We the People via the 1st Amendment "A lawfully un-abridge-able right to a justifiable redress of grievances and the 7th Amendment"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."Your, the Black Robed Royalist Brethren's, corrupt interpretation of the Constitution has created the insanity and insensitivity of YOUR current slovenly, slothfully and indefensible assertion of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY!!!!!

[23] See also USCA8 #07-2614, #08-1823, #10-1947 and Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court #07-11115

GoFundMe

Contact Form

About Me

“Where
an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is
safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where
there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite
cause.

Government
is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the
various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses.
This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which
impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” James
Madison “Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792”

The
strength of human civilization is its ability to OVERCOME our purely animal
instincts… CO-OPERATE for the GREATER GOOD!!Human civilization is the only species on this planet capable of
overcoming the animal instinct of Herbert Spencer’s discredited “survival of
the fittest.”This ability is what makes
us human, what makes us dominant and what separates us from the animals.

The
United States of America was FOUNDED on the "Love of Virtue."The Founding Fathers based their
constitutional assertions on the love of virtue as defined by Montesquieu’s
republican government’s essential ingredient, the willingness to put the
interests of the community ahead of private interests.We need to remember the, at the time,
“REVOLUTIONARY” “Love of Virtue” that this country was founded upon….